|
|
I'm building a computer soon, and I have a processor with 64bit support,
virtualization tech. and all that jazz, and it's Vista ready. So my question
is, should I get the 64bit version of Vista, becuase it'll run on my
computer, or should I just go with a slightly cheaper (on Ebay) 32 bit? I'd
also like to run some games on this computer that aren't compatible with 64
bit, they have general errors and etc. (ESIV:Oblivion, and games like that).
Which should I go with?
|
|
entirely your choice. If you have games that don't run in 64-bit, it seems
to me that you shouldn't run it. If you're building the box yourself, and
you _do_ intend to run 64-bit, please take the time BEFORE you buy
components to figure out what the current driver status is for them. You'll
save yourself a lot of trouble.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"AwakePlace" <AwakePlace[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D83D0E84-34A9-419C-A4B3-CE906D36C8DD[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm building a computer soon, and I have a processor with 64bit support,
> virtualization tech. and all that jazz, and it's Vista ready. So my
> question
> is, should I get the 64bit version of Vista, becuase it'll run on my
> computer, or should I just go with a slightly cheaper (on Ebay) 32 bit?
> I'd
> also like to run some games on this computer that aren't compatible with
> 64
> bit, they have general errors and etc. (ESIV:Oblivion, and games like
> that).
> Which should I go with?
|
|
If you buy 'Ultimate' you get both - install the 32bit now, and change it
when you need it.
Tony. . .
"AwakePlace" <AwakePlace[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D83D0E84-34A9-419C-A4B3-CE906D36C8DD[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm building a computer soon, and I have a processor with 64bit support,
> virtualization tech. and all that jazz, and it's Vista ready. So my
question
> is, should I get the 64bit version of Vista, becuase it'll run on my
> computer, or should I just go with a slightly cheaper (on Ebay) 32 bit?
I'd
> also like to run some games on this computer that aren't compatible with
64
> bit, they have general errors and etc. (ESIV:Oblivion, and games like
that).
> Which should I go with?
|
|
That is only Retail. If he buys OEM he gets only the one he initially
chooses.
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:e$yeq8ffHHA.4916[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > If you buy 'Ultimate' you get both - install the 32bit now, and change it > when you need it. > > > Tony. . . > > > "AwakePlace" <AwakePlace[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:D83D0E84-34A9-419C-A4B3-CE906D36C8DD[ at ]microsoft.com... >> I'm building a computer soon, and I have a processor with 64bit support, >> virtualization tech. and all that jazz, and it's Vista ready. So my > question >> is, should I get the 64bit version of Vista, becuase it'll run on my >> computer, or should I just go with a slightly cheaper (on Ebay) 32 bit? > I'd >> also like to run some games on this computer that aren't compatible with > 64 >> bit, they have general errors and etc. (ESIV:Oblivion, and games like > that). >> Which should I go with? > >
|
|
Hi:
You might also want to look the Games NG and see if you can find 64-bit
solutions for your allegedly not working 32-bit games.
64-bit Vista requires a lot of investigation before installing it.
Take note of every piece of hardware you intend to stick inside your PC
cabinet and look for Vista drivers on the manufacturers web sites.
Take note of all the software & games you intend to use and check their
manufacturers web sites as well as specialized forums.
www.planetamd64.com might be an interesting place for your investigations.
Carlos
"AwakePlace" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I'm building a computer soon, and I have a processor with 64bit support,
> virtualization tech. and all that jazz, and it's Vista ready. So my question
> is, should I get the 64bit version of Vista, becuase it'll run on my
> computer, or should I just go with a slightly cheaper (on Ebay) 32 bit? I'd
> also like to run some games on this computer that aren't compatible with 64
> bit, they have general errors and etc. (ESIV:Oblivion, and games like that).
> Which should I go with?
|
|
Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder! Actually, I have not seriously considered
the OEM version a meaningful buying object myself, the way support and
licensing is layed out between editions gives strong impetus towards paying
full price for 'Ultimate'. With a seven year lifetime even that looks
persuasive!
Tony. . .
"John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
news:%23J4wmBgfHHA.4916[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > That is only Retail. If he buys OEM he gets only the one he initially
> chooses.
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:e$yeq8ffHHA.4916[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > If you buy 'Ultimate' you get both - install the 32bit now, and change
it
> > when you need it.
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "AwakePlace" <AwakePlace[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:D83D0E84-34A9-419C-A4B3-CE906D36C8DD[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >> I'm building a computer soon, and I have a processor with 64bit
support,
> >> virtualization tech. and all that jazz, and it's Vista ready. So my
> > question
> >> is, should I get the 64bit version of Vista, becuase it'll run on my
> >> computer, or should I just go with a slightly cheaper (on Ebay) 32 bit?
> > I'd
> >> also like to run some games on this computer that aren't compatible
with
> > 64
> >> bit, they have general errors and etc. (ESIV:Oblivion, and games like
> > that).
> >> Which should I go with?
> >
> >
>
|
|
My advice would be to go with the 32 bit version. My experience has been
that finding drivers for Vista-32 is not too bad but still lacking in many
areas. Trying to Vista-64 drivers is a real crap shoot. I'm sure this will
change with time but "we aren't there yet!"
If you are buying an OEM version you're stuck with what you've bought. If
you buy the retail version (double the cost of OEM) you can order the 64-bit
disc for a small cost or get Vista Ultimate which comes with both. You can
then configure you system to dual boot and try both versions out.
|
|
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:uPE49IhfHHA.1312[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder! Actually, I have not seriously considered
> the OEM version a meaningful buying object myself, the way support and
> licensing is layed out between editions gives strong impetus towards
> paying
> full price for 'Ultimate'. With a seven year lifetime even that looks
> persuasive!
I've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM since February and have never
had the need to even think about calling MS tech support (which, of course,
I wouldnt be able to anyway). Your results may vary.
|
|
That, I don't doubt and naturally the differences may seem vague, but I was
thinking more of support in terms of OS support, rather than tech support -
what you can upgrade and how (possibly?) it makes the value of earlier
investments extend further into the future, I don't know - I am probably not
expressing myself very well today, but that's what it looks like to me.
I certainly don't buy full versions of MS software at every opportunity, but
considering I have XP x64 that I don't intend to upgrade away from and a
retail Win2K that MS is in the process of putting to sleep at the moment, I
think a retail Ultimate now makes sense since it extends to the licence of
Win2K that I payed hard earned money for. Over a lifespan of seven years,
after all, I'll need to move the system to more modern machines as
technology marches on.
Remember the movie 'Point Blank' ? Lee Marvin walking down that endless
corridor? The sound of his steps? That sound is a good illustration to the
march of technology coming to take away your investments, I think.
Tony. . .
"DP" <nospam[ at ]nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eXcnP5kfHHA.2396[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:uPE49IhfHHA.1312[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder! Actually, I have not seriously
considered
> > the OEM version a meaningful buying object myself, the way support and
> > licensing is layed out between editions gives strong impetus towards
> > paying
> > full price for 'Ultimate'. With a seven year lifetime even that looks
> > persuasive!
>
>
> I've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM since February and have never
> had the need to even think about calling MS tech support (which, of
course,
> I wouldnt be able to anyway). Your results may vary.
>
>
>
>
|
|
Many have good reasons to buy the retail version. I was just pointing out
to the OP that one of the differences with OEM is that you only get one
version. I bought the retail full version of Vista Ultimate for some of the
same reasons . The only OEM I have ever bought is the XP X64 as that was
the only available version, and now it sits on my old computer my wife uses
and is useless (no driver for the wireless adapter so she uses XP86
therefore Vista64 and XP64 sit there). I personally always like to dual
boot, even if I don't use the other system, so, if a problem develops, and
they do, I can access my main system thru a decent GUI and not have to try
to copy files etc. using DOS commands (yikes). Makes it tolerable to
restore an old registry for instance when you can't get any functions of a
system to work. While I do regular backups, I always have a plethora of
documents, mail and favourites I want to use to update the system.
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23wiXRanfHHA.4872[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > That, I don't doubt and naturally the differences may seem vague, but I
> was
> thinking more of support in terms of OS support, rather than tech
> support -
> what you can upgrade and how (possibly?) it makes the value of earlier
> investments extend further into the future, I don't know - I am probably
> not
> expressing myself very well today, but that's what it looks like to me.
>
> I certainly don't buy full versions of MS software at every opportunity,
> but
> considering I have XP x64 that I don't intend to upgrade away from and a
> retail Win2K that MS is in the process of putting to sleep at the moment,
> I
> think a retail Ultimate now makes sense since it extends to the licence of
> Win2K that I payed hard earned money for. Over a lifespan of seven years,
> after all, I'll need to move the system to more modern machines as
> technology marches on.
>
> Remember the movie 'Point Blank' ? Lee Marvin walking down that endless
> corridor? The sound of his steps? That sound is a good illustration to the
> march of technology coming to take away your investments, I think.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "DP" <nospam[ at ]nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eXcnP5kfHHA.2396[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:uPE49IhfHHA.1312[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder! Actually, I have not seriously
> considered
>> > the OEM version a meaningful buying object myself, the way support and
>> > licensing is layed out between editions gives strong impetus towards
>> > paying
>> > full price for 'Ultimate'. With a seven year lifetime even that looks
>> > persuasive!
>>
>>
>> I've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM since February and have never
>> had the need to even think about calling MS tech support (which, of
> course,
>> I wouldnt be able to anyway). Your results may vary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|